4 Approaching the Gender Gap in Engineering

About the Author

Maria Bradshaw (more commonly known as Mia) was born and raised in Orem, Utah. She came to Utah State University to study Environmental Engineering. She loves sports and music, more specifically, soccer and piano.

This essay was composed in December 2021 and uses MLA documentation.

IN CALCULUS 2, ONE OF THE MAIN TOPICS students study is infinite series. They learn what an infinite series is, the different types, and, much to their dismay, how to test a series. When presented with a question regarding an infinite series, students are required to use one of eight tests to find whether the series diverges or converges. Sometimes, a student may choose a test and start solving the problem only to find that the test is inconclusive. Rather than forcing that test to work, the best strategy is to rewrite the series in a different form to change the method. In other words, it’s best to use a different approach to solve the problem.

One of the biggest problems within the engineering field that has persisted for many years is the gender gap between men and women. According to the United States Census, “Women made gains – from 8% of STEM workers in 1970 to 27% in 2019 – but men still dominated the field” (Bureau). While the gap has decreased significantly, women remain the minority by a landslide. There have been increased efforts to diversify the field, including events advertising women in STEM and a larger opportunity for women to study math and science. Yet, the numbers have almost stagnated, only increasing by about 2% since 2017 (“Women in STEM”). Although there is advocacy for women in engineering, the approach needs to change because it currently marginalizes women, and the environment does not allow women to develop in the field. Therefore, engineering loses the advantages that come from diversity, such as increased perspectives in problem-solving situations.

To solve the problem, it is necessary first to understand the problem. When analyzing the gender gap within engineering, it is common to observe how many women are actually joining the field to see if the issue lies within exposure to engineering. P.D. Schreuders, an engineering professor, conducted a study in which he interviewed engineers to explore their views on the field regarding gender. Going into the study, he had a preconceived notion that “the gender gap in science and engineering exists because few women take science and math prior to college” (Schreuders). So, the accepted explanation is that women don’t enter engineering because they don’t take the classes necessary to expose them to the field. Yet, the overarching reason women join the field is that they enjoyed math and science courses in high school (Silbey), meaning that women are not only introduced to math and science but also excel in those areas. Schreuders’ study found that anywhere from 4%-10% more women took science than men. After taking those courses before entering college, women may become interested in pursuing a career that uses the knowledge gained from those subjects, leading them to study engineering.

While increased exposure to math and science is one of the most prominent reasons women join engineering, there are other leading reasons. A group of psychology and education professors conducted a study to investigate why fewer women were in actual engineering careers. After interviewing many women, the professors observed that before deciding to study engineering in college, the women’s families encouraged them to go into the field because they excelled in math and science during high school (Saavedra). Not only are women encouraged by their families to enter the field, but an increased outreach due to Title IX encourages women as well. Title IX is an education amendment to the constitution that dictates that there must be no discrimination based on sex in any education program (U.S.). After this legislation, the engineering field saw a slight increase in diversity (Cater-Steel). Between taking the proper courses to be exposed to engineering in high school and being encouraged by others, there is no apparent shortage of women joining engineering. Therefore it can be reasoned that the gender gap comes from women leaving the field either while studying or after entering their careers.

Rather than continually looking at the lack of women joining as the issue, the focus should shift to other aspects of women in engineering, such as women leaving the field. There are just as many reasons why they leave engineering as there are reasons that they joined it. One of the main reasons women choose to leave engineering is because it did not meet their expectations. Before going into engineering, women often think that they will be helping people through their work. However, further into an engineering major or career shows a greater emphasis on fixing things rather than directly helping people. The focus on material things causes some women to leave because the reality of the workforce does not align with their expectations (Silbey). While the work itself won’t change to deal with fewer “things,” professors and advisors could clarify what the career would actually entail. With more observation, unmet expectations seem to be one of the more minor causes for women leaving engineering.

Women may also leave the field due to being treated poorly. Joanna Wolfe, a professor in the College of Humanities and Social Sciences at Carnegie Mellon, conducted a study in which she surveyed women on their experiences throughout their engineering education. One of the findings of this study was that “over half of the engineering undergraduates… reported problems with ‘alpha,’ or domineering, teammates who dismissed their input or excluded them from participating” (Wolfe). When working with their male counterparts throughout their education, women experienced being ignored and excluded from different projects and research. The women went unheard and were often only given small or secretarial tasks because someone in their group, often a male, would take over the actual problem-solving. These women were not respected during their education, causing some to leave. When women experience exclusion, they often report significant self-doubt and low confidence with little to no reassurance from those around them in the classroom (Wolfe; Rogers). If someone does not feel confident in a field, they will often leave it in pursuit of something they can find real confidence in.

While being treated poorly is a leading cause, perhaps the most significant reason women leave engineering is the environment within the field. The environment is structured in a way that does not allow women to develop unless they are willing to shift their ideals to those of the engineering world. At its base, engineering is a highly logical, research, and project-based field. Those within engineering usually avoid political and feeling-involved issues such as the gender gap (Beddoes). This avoidance is shown when bringing the inclusion of minorities into question is seen as a distraction to the actual work to be done. Engineering also revolves around a core value of meritocracy. Meritocracy is the idea that someone will get to a place of higher power based on their ability and skills. Another key aspect of the environment within engineering is that it is predominantly male, hence the gender gap issue. Because of this, masculine paradigms set the tone within a workspace. A study conducted by a group of sociology professors found that women recognize their marginalization and, after doing so, “respond to their status by adopting the norms and expectations of the majority group” (Seron). Once women acknowledge their low status in engineering, they start accepting this status as well as adopting the characteristics surrounding them. In other words, women will more voluntarily take the secretarial tasks of a project and start depending more entirely on logos to show less emotion. Showing less emotion is beneficial to women because they are seen as weaker when acting in perceived feminine ways (Wolfe).

Besides a predominantly masculine environment, further investigation shows that it is usual for men to stick with men and women to stick with women in group projects because “they are placing a higher value on social comfort and familiarity over wider brainpower and intellectual inputs” (Cater-Steel). It is easier to stick with what’s familiar, and especially for women in engineering, they stick around those they may feel more confident around. This separation between men and women takes away from the ability to problem solve because when people of different backgrounds and statuses work together, there are more perspectives to work with.

When it comes to working within this male dominant, logical, and meritocratic environment, women in engineering have their own approach on how to advocate for themselves in difficult situations with their male colleagues. Another aspect of Joanna Wolfe’s study observed the way professional engineers dealt with a coworker who took over projects or ignored them. The undergraduate women who were still interning often avoided confrontation because they were unsure how to communicate the issue. After being in situations like these, “30% of the female professionals… explicitly state that women should avoid mentioning feelings or emotions” because an emotional approach will “put them at odds with [the] engineering ethos of rational decision-making” (Wolfe). When attempting to solve the issue, some women noticed that if they included how they felt when confronting a colleague, their colleague dismissed the issue as irrelevant. In an environment that holds very closely to a logos approach on everything, bringing emotion into the situation downplays the seriousness of a problem. Once the professional women realized this, they devised a structured way of solving these issues. They advised the undergraduate women to establish procedures and goals for a group at the beginning of a project to avoid being excluded from the work. By setting expectations that the whole group agreed on at the beginning, they were respected throughout that project and the projects and research that came afterward.

Alongside women advocating for themselves in engineering, there is an outside approach for advocacy in hopes of decreasing the gender gap. The current approach for advocacy focuses on increasing the awareness of the gender gap and telling women to stand up for themselves and be more confident (Rogers). Kacey Beddoes, a project director who focuses on gender studies and engineering education, wrote an analysis of how the current approach works. One of the main points she makes is how the approach “studies down” on women. She defines the term “studying down” by explaining, “the interventions undertaken and the research based on them have largely ignored social and institutional structures, opting instead to focus on ‘fixing’ students from underrepresented groups” (Beddoes). Rather than looking at the issues within the field, the minority is the problem. It is unusual for the approach to involve the idea that the majority and institutions allow the gender gap to persist. This concept is similar to the idea that the gender gap exists because not many women are joining the field, yet Schreuders’ earlier study found that false. Some women enter engineering, but they are seen as the problem and told to do simple things like gain more confidence to succeed. While this approach did have some effect and continues to introduce engineering to women, it is not enough to close the gender gap because it fails to recognize the problems within the field. So, as students in calculus must change their approach to solving an infinite series, the approach to advocacy for women needs to change as well.

When changing the approach for advocacy and increasing diversity within engineering, one of the biggest arguments against it is that the field has been working fine. It is true that engineering has always been a successful field, and it is a common ideology not to mess with something that is not broken. Nevertheless, the ideas and tools used in engineering are constantly improving and developing, so there is no reason that the type of people who work in the field should remain the same. This isn’t to say that anyone who currently works in engineering needs to leave to create space for diversity but that there should be a greater allowance for minorities such as women working in the field as well. There is also the idea inside engineering that diversity will overstep meritocracy (Seron). There is the possibility that an attempt to increase diversity will threaten the reliance on meritocracy. However, it is possible to have a diverse field based on skills and abilities to get somewhere without relying on being a minority. The reward of diversity would be greater than the risks.

That ‘reward’ would come from increasing diversity, which will provide many benefits to the field as both a major during education and a career. During education, what students gain from that education depends on the work they put into it and the environment that surrounds them. In a study that surveyed students and their perceived gains in knowledge, the conclusion showed that when engineering students had contact with students of different backgrounds, it led to “greater learning gains in domains such as personal/social development, practical competence, and general education” (Strayhorn). The increased diversity allows for more perspectives to work together. When more perspectives work together, not only are more solutions explored, but students also gain more knowledge and growth in different areas. The broader horizon lets new light shed on the situation.

In another study done at Brigham Young University, men and women were put into groups with different ratios of men to women. They were told to decide as a group how to spend a large amount of money. Half of the groups decided based on unanimity, while the other half decided based on majority rule. An analysis of this study found that the groups based on unanimity let the women have more say in how the money was to be spent, while the groups that decided based on majority rule often had a dominant male who convinced everyone else. In addition, the groups that allowed the women to be heard and speak more were significantly more content with their decisions than the other groups (Rogers). So, when more perspectives are heard, a group can come to a decision that’s best for more people. The findings of this study also show that basing group decisions on unanimity increases the amount of group participation, which emphasizes the idea discussed earlier that to avoid a single person dominating a project, goals need to be set by the group at the beginning. Although this study focused on the decisions on how to spend money, the principles to be learned from it can apply to any group work in problem-solving situations. Therefore, if engineering were to have more women, the ability to problem solve would significantly increase in research groups.

Engineering has seen a gender gap that has existed for years even after a raised awareness of the problem. The gender gap has persisted due to the environment of the field and the current approach to advocacy for women. The current approach further marginalizes women rather than recognizing the problems within institutions. The environment also does not allow women to thrive and develop unless they are willing to give up their ideals to conform to the logical and meritocratic thinking in the field. Increasing the number of women in engineering would benefit the field, as more diversity will allow for greater problem-solving abilities because there would be more perspectives on problems. Just like a student in a Calculus 2 course needs to change their approach to solving infinite series, the way we approach increasing diversity needs to shift so an actual solution can be found. Not only to fix a gender gap but to improve the field because the best ideas come from broadening horizons, not narrowing them.

Works Cited

Beddoes, Kacey. “Institutional Influences That Promote Studying Down in Engineering Diversity Research.” Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, vol. 38, no. 1, Mar. 2017, pp. 88–99. EBSCOhost, doi:10.5250/fronjwomestud.38.1.0088. Accessed 10 October 2021.

Bird, Sharon R., and Laura A. Rhoton. “Seeing Isn’t Always Believing: Gender, Academic Stem, and Women Scientists’ Perceptions of Career Opportunities.” Gender & Society, vol. 35, no. 3, 2021, pp. 422–448., doi:10.1177/08912432211008814. Accessed 3 November 2021.

Bureau, U.S. Census. “Women Are Nearly Half of U.S. Workforce but Only 27% of STEM Workers.” Census.gov, 8 Oct. 2021, www.census.gov/library/stories/2021/01/women-making-gains-in-stem-occupations-but-s till-underrepresented.html. Accessed 2 November 2021.

Cater-Steel, Aileen and Emily Cater, editors. Women in Engineering, Science and Technology: Education and Career Challenges. IGI Global, 2010. http://doi:10.4018/978-1-61520-657-5.

Rogers, Brittany Karford. “When Women Don’t Speak.” Y Magazine, Brigham Young University, 2 Sep. 2021, magazine.byu.edu/article/when-women-dont-speak/. Accessed 10 November 2021.

Saavedra, Luísa, et al. “Dilemmas of Girls and Women in Engineering: A Study in Portugal.” Educational Review, vol. 66, no. 3, 2013, pp. 330–344., doi:10.1080/00131911.2013.780006. Accessed 3 November 2021.

Schreuders, P. D., et al. “Pipeline or Personal Preference: Women in Engineering.” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 34, no. 1, 2009, pp. 97–112., doi:10.1080/03043790902721488. Accessed 28 October 2021.

Seron, Carroll, et al. “‘I Am Not a Feminist, but. . .’: Hegemony of a Meritocratic Ideology and the Limits of Critique Among Women in Engineering.” Work & Occupations, vol. 45, no. 2, May 2018, pp. 131–167. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1177/0730888418759774. Accessed 15 October 2021.

Silbey, Susan S. “Why Do so Many Women Who Study Engineering Leave the Field?” Harvard Business Review, Harvard Business Publishing, 23 Aug. 2016, hbr.org/2016/08/why-do-so-many-women-who-study-engineering-leave-the-field. Accessed 10 October 2021.

Strayhorn, Terrell Lamont, et al. “Measuring the Educational Benefits of Diversity in Engineering Education: A Multi-Institutional Survey Analysis of Women and Underrepresented Minorities.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jan. 2014, pp. 1–15. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=115955710 &site=ehost-live. Accessed 15 October 2021.

“U.S. Department of Education Confirms Title IX Protects Students from Discrimination Based on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity.” U.S. Department of Education, 16 June 2021, www.ed.gov. Accessed 26 November 2021.

Wolfe, Joanna, and Beth A. Powell. “Identifying Successful Interpersonal Communication Strategies for Women in Masculine Settings.” Proceedings of the ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Jan. 2014, pp. 1–14. EBSCOhost, search-ebscohost-com.dist.lib.usu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=115955502 &site=ehost-live. Accessed 11 October 2021.

“Women in STEM: Percentages of Women in STEM Statistics.” Women in STEM Jobs, Events & Hiring – STEM Women, 22 Jan. 2021, https://www.stemwomen.com/blog/2021/01/women-in-stem-percentages-of-women-in-st em-statistics. Accessed 01 December 2021.